AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Shreesha, J
Aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2016 in Complaint Case No. 1145 of 2016 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short the "State Commission"), the Complainant preferred present First Appeal No. 2051 of 2017 under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant interest by way of compensation @ 18% p.a. over Rs. 37,00,000/- with effect from 16.05.2010 till 31.01.2011 both dates inclusive together with Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
It is the Complainant's case that there is deficiency of service against the Developer since as though an amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- was paid towards sale consideration for Flat No. 601 situated at Vijaya Annex, on account of non-providing of certain amenities the Complainant cancelled his booking and sought for refund of the amount paid. It is averred that the amount was paid on 14.05.2010 towards part payment of the total sale consideration but though on 16.05.2010 itself the Complainant communicated her decision with respect to cancellation of the allotment of Flat No. 601, it was only after the filing of the Consumer Complaint on 04.10.2010 that the principle amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- was refunded by the Developer to the Complainant on 31.01.2011. Despite the Complainant having requested for interest several times as the Developer had retained her amount from 14.05.2010 till 31.01.2011, there was no response. After having heard both the sides the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part with the aforenoted directions.
It is case of the Respondents that though the Developer had offered the payment of the amount, the Complainant herself refused to come forward and accept the same. It was the Complainant's stand that since the Developer had taken the money, the Developer alone should come to her doorstep and handover the money and hence though the cheque was ready a series of communication ensued but still the Complainant did not come forward to accept the cheque.
It is the case of the Complainant/ Appellant before us that the amount was never offered to her and initially the demand for refund was made on 16.05.2010 itself (Exhibit "D" before the State Commission) and it is the Respondents' case that the Complainant's cheque was drawn only on 14.07.2010 after the booking of the flat was cancelled.
Nobody has appeared for the Respondents, despite service of notice by publication in Times of India.
It is pertinent to mention that the Respondents did not challenge the impugned order by way of any Appeal and therefore the finding of the State Commission that there is a deficiency of service on behalf of the Respondents has attained finality.
The party in person appearing for the Appellant submitted that some amount of compensation is to be awarded to meet the ends of justice as the compensation amount awarded by the State Commission was paid subsequently after five years. The Appellant further submitted that expenses were also incurred towards publication of notice. Reliance has been placed on Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, [(2004) 5 SCC 65], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the grounds on which the compensation be awarded in matters of delayed possession. In the instant case interest @ 18% p.a. has already been awarded by the State Commission towards interest and compensation, however, having regard to the fact that the interest @ 18% p.a. for the limited period from 16.05.2010 till 31.01.2011 was paid only after issuance of legal notice dated 13.05.2013, 18.10.2013, 15.11.2018 and 18.12.2013 and after filing of an Execution Application No. 2014/10 dated 28.11.2014; an ex parte order was passed by the State Commission in the execution proceeding on 28.11.2014; further an order was passed directing the concerned District Collector to collect the decreed sum amounting to Rs. 5,11,591/- as the arears of land revenue; ultimately a cheque for that amount dated 20.04.2016 was handed over to the Complainant on 03.05.2016; the fact that the respondents not only did not challenge the impugned order but also complied with the order only after four years; the order is dated 12.04.2012 and as per the submission of the Appellant/ Complainant the cheque was handed over only on 03.05.2016; keeping in view the Principles of Natural Justice, we find it a fit case to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation and costs to be paid within four weeks from the date of this order.
In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part with the aforenoted directions.